Heimbaugh v. City & County of San Francisco

977 F.2d 589 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Robert A. HEIMBAUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, San Francisco Sheriff's Dept., San Francisco Civil Service Commission, Michael Hennessey, James F. Harrigan, Betty Bortin, Dan Flynn, Peter Lichtmann, James Denman, Edgar Flower, Jr., et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-15109. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 27, 1992. * Decided Oct. 8, 1992. Before CHOY, SNEED and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Notwithstanding "Heimbaugh II," No. 91-16068, Robert Heimbaugh now appeals the district court's denial of his motion to disqualify the district court judge and remand this case to state court. He also appeals the dismissal of his claim on the ground of res judicata. This proceeding is "Heimbaugh III." I. FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 3 It is not necessary to restate the facts and proceedings of Heimbaugh I and Heimbaugh II. These appear in the latter…